I can somewhat understand the penalty. Not really, but for arguments sake let's just say it is justified. What I don't get is how they are going to give that confiscated cap space to the other teams??? How could that be more unfair? Not only penalize us, but reward the rest of the league? That's doing double damage. The Danny and the crypt keeper should get together and sue the NFL a la Al Davis. We should get to pick a player of our choice from every other team as restitution.

Deadskins wrote:I can somewhat understand the penalty. Not really, but for arguments sake let's just say it is justified. What I don't get is how they are going to give that confiscated cap space to the other teams??? How could that be more unfair? Not only penalize us, but reward the rest of the league? That's doing double damage. The Danny and the crypt keeper should get together and sue the NFL a la Al Davis. We should get to pick a player of our choice from every other team as restitution.

Or how contracts that were approved can be later not only penalized but also beneficial to every other team. Donate it to charity... Seems like double jeopardy.. fine us and help our opposition? That's fair since in an uncapped year or.not all we did was get rid of bums like fat al. Not sure what the hall reconstruction was but instead of... "They should cut me..." Maybe he helps pay w some of his salary? It's total crap jus glad it hurt the pukes aswell if there is ANY silver lining that is it

The Dallas Cowboys and Washington Redskins will have considerably less to work with when free agency opens on Tuesday.

The NFL has taken away millions in salary cap space from both teams after the two NFC East clubs pushed spending into the uncapped year to save money under the cap in 2011 and '12.

The money taken from Dallas and Washington will be put back into the pool, and spread in cap space among the other clubs. Teams were warned not to spend into the uncapped year as a way of circumventing the salary cap in the future.

"The Management Council Executive Committee determined that the contract practices of a small number of clubs during the 2010 league year created an unacceptable risk to future competitive balance, particularly in light of the relatively modest salary cap growth projected for the new agreement's early years," the NFL said in a statement.

"To remedy these effects and preserve competitive balance throughout the league, the parties to the CBA agreed to adjustments to team salary for the 2012 and 2013 seasons. These agreed-upon adjustments were structured in a manner that will not affect the salary cap or player spending on a league-wide basis."

Prior to the uncapped year, the competition committee warned teams that punishment would be levied for taking advantage of the circumstances. The Redskins and Cowboys were the most egregious offenders, as they dumped huge base salaries to players such as DeAngelo Hall, Albert Haynesworth and Miles Austin into the 2010 season in order to get the big numbers in those deals off the books while there was no cap.

The Oakland Raiders and New Orleans Saints took advantage on a more marginal level, in terms of front-loading contracts.

The competition committee would not give final approval of the new adjusted salary cap number for the 2012 season until this matter was taken care of. The union pushed to make sure the pool would not shrink, so it was decided that the savings from the Redskins' and Cowboys' infractions would go back in the pool, and be split among the 28 abiding teams.

First the NBA revoking a trade of Chris Paul to the Lakers due to other owners complaining and the league stating it's tyring to preserve competitive balance and now this crap. I get that if we did something wrong then get punished but this seems very sketchy and if the Saints and Raiders violated the same rules without punishment then why are they not punished. The same infraction should render the same or similar punishment. Sounds like the rest of the league doesn't want Snyder to be able to go out and get free agents so they complained and sold the idea of "competitive balance" to the league. Either that or i'm just being irrational because I was so pumped for tomorrrow....could be that, sigh.

It's actually insane. The league was instructing teams not to spend above normal in the uncapped year. That's wildly illegal. It's a restraint of trade and they could have been sued into oblivion had any of that come out.

But the most recent CBA absolved the owners of any antitrust litigation, so now the league is punishing the Skins and Cowboys for not colluding with everyone else in previous CBA. The NFLPA signed off on this, unbelievably, by having that salary allocated to other teams. The thing is, this punishment just strengthens any future collusion. The NFLPA should be furious.

From a guy I'm discussing this with...

Assuming the new CBA included a provision against and anti-trust lawsuit, that provision is unlawful. You cannot include in a contract a provision that violates the public policy of the United States. If it were not so then slavery would be legal by contract.